ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Shane Singh Named One of Los Angeles Business Journal's 'Top 100 Lawyers of Los Angeles' for 2026

April 27, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois
Sacramento Partner Shane Singh has been named one of the Los Angeles Business Journal's "Top 100 Lawyers of Los Angeles" for 2026. The LABJ’s annual list honors Los Angeles' top lawyers for their achievements within the city's business community. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Chambers USA 2026 Recognizes Multiple Snell & Wilmer Attorneys and Practices

August 11, 2026 — Snell & Wilmer
PHOENIX – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that its attorneys have received 57 individual recognitions in their respective fields, by Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business 2026. These prestigious rankings are driven by independent interviews with clients of the firm and members of the legal community. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer

---

Parking Garage Partially Collapses in Dearborn, Mich., Trapping One

March 31, 2026 — Annemarie Mannion - Engineering News-Record
A multi-level parking garage that partially collapsed in Dearborn, Mich., is fenced off and the city has started the legal process allowed under state law to demolish the privately-owned structure due to alleged dangerous conditions. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Annemarie Mannion, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Mannion may be contacted at manniona@enr.com

---

Modern Building-Sundt $17M Claim Is Stranded by Hospital Bankruptcy

April 27, 2026 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
A $16.9-million claim for work on a hospital addition by a joint venture of contractors Modern Building Co. and Sundt Construction is stuck and delayed indefinitely following the California hospital's December bankruptcy filing. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com

---

Only A Contractor Can Appeal a Contracting Officer’s Final Decision

April 20, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent decision from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals confirms that “only a ‘contractor’ may file an appeal of a contracting officer’s final decision.” Wattiker v. General Services Administration, 2026 WL 846001 (CBCA 2026) (citation omitted). The term “contractor is not an ambiguous term. A ‘contractor’ refers to a party to a federal government contract. Wattiker (citing the Contract Disputes Act). This is why the Contract Disputes Act does not apply to parties that are NOT in contract with the federal government. Id. In Wattiker, an appellant (appealing party) challenged the dismissal of a co-appellant. The co-appellant was dismissed because he was not a contractor, i.e., a party in contract with the federal government. In other words, the co-appellant had no privity of contract with the federal government. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

AI & Digital Tools on Construction Projects: Contract Risks to Address Before Peak Season

April 08, 2026 — Meghan Douris - The Construction Seyt
Artificial intelligence and advanced digital tools are no longer experimental on construction projects. In Q1 of 2026, we can already see how they are already influencing schedules, estimates, submittals, safety reporting, and day‑to‑day project documentation. As peak construction season approaches, many teams are accelerating adoption of AI to gain efficiency. What often lags behind, however, is the contract framework governing how those tools are used—and how their outputs are treated when something goes wrong. On sophisticated construction projects, that gap can quickly become a dispute driver. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Meghan Douris, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Ms. Douris may be contacted at mdouris@seyfarth.com

---

What Massachusetts Contractors and Developers Can Learn from Cannistraro v. Columbia Construction

July 13, 2026 — Anthony LaPlaca & Luke Marston - The Construction Seyt
Introduction On June 26, 2026 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued its decision in J.C. Cannistraro, LLC v. Columbia Construction Co.—a holding that sits at the intersection of Prompt Pay Act compliance and the Massachusetts Arbitration Act.[1] Most already know that the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act (PPA) imposes strict timing and certification requirements for rejecting payment applications and proposed change orders on projects valued at $3 million or more. Most notably, the PPA requires the paying party to give the payee written notice of its approval or rejection of progress applications and proposed changes within 15 days of receipt, which notice must include a “factual and contractual basis for the rejection” and must be “certified as made in good faith.”[2] In the absence of a timely certified notice, payment is “deemed to be approved” unless the payor properly rejects payment before it comes due.[3] Reprinted courtesy of Anthony LaPlaca, Seyfarth Shaw LLP and Luke Marston, Seyfarth Shaw LLP Mr. LaPlaca may be contacted at alaplaca@seyfarth.com Mr. Marston may be contacted at lmarston@seyfarth.com Read the full story...

---

Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in Significant California Public Utilities Suit

May 12, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to Partner Mike D’Andrea and Associates Ruth Rasiah and Kaylah Abdullah in the Los Angeles office for obtaining a complete dismissal of their clients in a significant claim involving California’s Public Utilities regulations. After lengthy litigation, BWB&O’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted against Claimant, Spectrum (Charter Communications), which resulted in a complete dismissal of the action against BWB&O’s clients. At issue was whether California’s Public Utilities Code shifted the common law duty to maintain certain utility equipment in residential areas within Southern California. After significant briefing, the Superior Court found that BWB&O correctly argued that the Public Utilities Code required utility companies, like Spectrum, to fully maintain utility equipment, and that private residents are not responsible for utility maintenance (even if the physical equipment is located on private property). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---